This is a blog for the people; no matter where you are from, we invite you to comment on your view. Our country is in trouble and the truth need to be told instead of the political lies from both parties. Comments are open, if you see something inappropriate let me know, if you need something researched or to comment directly to me, send your email to theamericapartyusa@gmail.com.

Judges Not Following the US Constitution

When liberals get into positions of power, in almost every
case they will abuse this power for personal gain. The “Process Clause” of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S.C. § 455,
“Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge” tell us when a justice
must recuse themselves from a case. The
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law Second Edition, Federal
Judicial Center 2010 clarifies this by putting a fine point on when a justice
by law are required to recuse themselves. You can look it up but here are just
a few situations where justices must recuse themselves; they are as follows:

If the judge was involved in the case prior to reaching the higher
court from a lower court.

If the judge has been counsel for either party (defending,
prosecuting, or conducting ceremonies).

If the judge was the trial judge on the case that is up for
appeal.

If a judge or family member has a financial interest (owning
stock or being paid royalties) or personal interest (advocate for or against)
the case at hand.

These are just a couple and seem pretty common since but the
reason they were written into the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution was because judges were taking their personal feeling and biases
to decide a case instead of the facts and merits of the case. By the US
Constitution judges are to interpret the law, not make it, but today we have a
massive number of liberal justices making the law. All of our laws stem from
the US Constitution and when you have liberal justices, especially on the US
Supreme Court who swear an oath to preserve and protect the constitution that
do not believe in the constitution as law; we have a problem. When these same
liberal justices refuse to recuse themselves when the US Constitution requires
it, this creates tyranny and the miss use of the justice system. This one fact
by itself can take every right we have as Americans away. So let’s take a look
at a couple of justices.

"That one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the
decisions one renders from the bench."

"I further accept that our experiences as women and
people of color will affect our decisions,"

"Personal experiences affect the facts that judges
choose to see”

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological
or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a
difference in our judging.

Your race, gender, nor your ethnicity should ever effect
your job of judging, these are statements from a female chauvinist and racist.
What is more disturbing is that she says she will only see the facts she
chooses to see. So evidence and truth means nothing to her but then again, she
is a liberal. Justice Sotomayor does not view the Constitution
as "Settled Law". To have a Supreme Court Justice with this type
of view is disturbing, but we actually have more than one, and more than one
who refuse to recuse themselves when the law demands it. Justice Sotomayor has
already violated her oath of office and any respectable justice would resign,
but liberals are seldom ever respectable and the law don’t apply to them in
their eyes. For instance, when there was a Supreme Court case on the US
Boarders, Justice Sotomayor by the law was to recuse herself. For over a
decade, Justice Sotomayor served as a Board
Member and Vice President of the open-borders legal advocate and long-time
amnesty-activist, Latino Justice. I’m pretty sure that violates the “The
Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law” requirements, but she
isn’t the only one. Is this the type of justice who is above reproach? NO!

“You would have a huge statelessness problem if you don't
consider a child born abroad a U.S. citizen.”

“Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,
there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in
populations that we don't want to have too many of.”

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were
drafting a constitution in 2012.”

This shows that in Justice Ginsburg’s mind, she thinks
America should take care of all the children in the world. The second statement
bothers me more because what population or ethnic group is it that she doesn’t
want too many of? That statement is as racist as it can get but she is a
liberal so the media won’t say a thing. Her last quote is the most disturbing.
We have proven to have the best Constitution of any free world to support
freedom but she wouldn’t use it to draft a new one. She along with all liberal
elitist would probably have all Americans turned into subjects instead of
citizens. She also should have recused herself from the gay
marriage case since she was an advocate for gay marriage, speaking at gay
conferences and acted in favor of gay marriage. Justice Ginsburg had performed three
to five gay ceremonies, one in the chambers of the Supreme Court itself. I’m
pretty sure that violates the “The Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of
Federal Law” requirements just as Justice Sotomayor did but did she act
respectively; no. On top of this, Justice Ginsburg
just made an ass out of herself by commenting on a current presidential
candidate which is taboo for a Supreme Court Justice. As a matter of fact, she
was the first US Supreme Court Justice in history to do so. Was it because she
was trying to pay back Bill Clinton by helping Hillary get elected for selecting
her to the Supreme Court?

“And what my constitutional values are, are wholly
irrelevant to the job, and so neither you nor anyone else will know what they
are.”

“What my political views or my constitutional views are just
doesn't matter.”

“Perhaps most important, judges will have goals. And because
this is so, judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote
certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. Such activity is not
necessarily wrong or invalid.”

“In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere
to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a
golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of
socialism's greatness.”

To start with, Justice Kagan’s “constitutional values” are completely
relevant to her job because she like all justices swore an oath to defend and
protect the US Constitution. If your political views go against the
constitution as Justice Kagan’s do, then you should be removed from the Supreme
Court. When you have a judge trying to “mold and steer the law in order to
promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends”, they have just
violated the constitution because their job is to interpret the law, not “mold
and steer the law”. The constitution is 100% about a capitalistic country, when
you have justice praising socialism as great, by the US Constitution, they need
to be removed. Justice Kagan had the same
conflict as Ruth Bader Ginsburg on gay marriage. Justice Kagan had
performed same-sex wedding ceremonies which again, under the 14th
Amendment mandates she recuse herself but once again, liberal justices never
follow the law. She should have recused
herself from the Obamacare Supreme court case as well since she, as solicitor
general of the United States, served as the head of an office responsible for
formulating the Obama
administration’s legal defense of its domestic agenda priority. Is this why
President Obama appointed her to the Supreme Court, to get his agenda through?

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer should have recused
himself from the Wisconsin-based
Johnson Controls, Inc. case because his wife had ownership of stock in a
company involved in the dispute. But as all liberal including people who are to
uphold the law, Justice Breyer broke the law by not recusing himself but again,
he is a liberal so what do you expect.

You wonder why “We the People” don’t trust the government,
just look at the liberals actions who are on our supreme court not to mention
all other courts who circumvent the will of the people. Imagine what all the
other liberal justices on the lower courts are doing and who they are doing it
to. These liberal justices are stripping away every American’s rights and if we
don’t change it, we will soon be subjects instead of citizens and know
firsthand the meaning of tyranny.